Editorial: Of course there was a dust-up at the Anti-gun violence/pro-gun rights rally

What did Jack Kimball think would happen? Kimball, a former gubernatorial candidate and chairman of the state Republican Party, was one of the organizers of a counter-rally at the State House on Tuesday to protest the reading of the names of those killed in gun violence in the six months since the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shootings. The counter-rally progressed from boorish and juvenile to ugly when a burly, 52-year-old gun rights advocate refused to stop harassing a gun violence victim speaking on behalf of Mayors Against Gun Violence, a group co-founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The activist was shocked with a Taser, subdued and arrested by the Concord police.

The mayors campaign is touring the nation to advocate for stronger laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who, by dint of mental health or criminal history, shouldn’t have them. The actions of some of the people at the rally suggest that perhaps they belong on that list, but though many people were armed, no weapon was brandished. The police making the arrest were taunted, but did not appear to have been physically threatened.

Kimball knew, or should have known, since he organized a “Day of Resistance” rally in February to support rights under the Second Amendment, that the counter-rally would include a considerable number of gun owners who feel the need to assert their rights by being conspicuously and heavily armed. They are the gun-rights advocates’ worst enemy.

The pro-gun rights crowd, which outnumbered the supporters of background checks, was instantly unruly and disrespectful of the very rights of free expression that they profess to defend. They constantly shouted down gun-law advocates and many appeared angry and threatening. That is not the way to win public support for one’s cause.

These angry clashes between groups with rival opinions are predictable and speak to the poor judgment of those who chose to attend them, among them, Dunbarton state Rep. JR Hoell and Ralph Demicco, owner of the legendary Riley’s Sports Shop in Hooksett.

The behavior of the protestors made a better brief for tougher gun laws than the words of those speaking out against gun violence. But nothing made the case better than the digital display that changed as another gun death occurred, and at one point read 6,139.

Is it legal for the City of NY to host this 501c webpage on its servers???????? Isn't that very illegal????

Van wrote:

06/20/2013

Of course the Leftwing propaganda spewing Monitor is at it again with their Modus Operandi of pronouncing good decent people like JR Hoell guilty by association because one pro-gun zealot got out of control.
Well what the Monitor didn’t tell you because of their extreme liberal bias is that these anti-gun extremists think the Boston Marathon Bomber is a gun victim. Yes these anti-gun leftwing extremists think that bombing innocent people, killing a cop, and then dying in a shootout with police officers makes you a victim. Monitor why don’t you print the truth without the bias. Maybe you will sell more papers.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/20/gun-control-group-counts-boston-marathon-bomber-tsarnaev-as-victim/

ItsaRepublic wrote:

06/20/2013

Bingo....Van! You nailed it! If Code Pink wanted to shout down a protestor, they would call them a 'patriot'. It is evident that progressives are more hateful, more extreme, more pompous and more hypocritical than those whom they excoriate.....that would be everyone else that does not live their lives up to the standards that progressives hold for others (not necessarily themselves).

Van wrote:

06/21/2013

You bet ItsaRepublic, if Cindy Shaheen was treated by police like in the video published on this page the Monitor would be calling the police Jack Booted Thugs.

Tesha wrote:

06/20/2013

Dear Editors,
Gould you rephrase the headline? What you called the "anti" side is "pro-sensible gun laws" and the folks who can to intimidate and frighten are more" anti-any gun laws"

GWTW wrote:

06/20/2013

Keeps getting better...Christopher Dorner was on the list...Kevin Bailey, Kurt Myers...all cop killers. Like I said before...this group of Bloombums should be run out of state on a rail. Get out. Stay out. Dont come back. Ever.

GWTW wrote:

06/20/2013

When a liberal continues to question someone at a rally with whom they do not agree...thats speaking truth to power....gun rights advocate continues to question someone at a rally with whom they do not agree...harassment.

RabbitNH wrote:

06/20/2013

Your post is very contradicting Mauser. On one hand you seem to think that there are gun owners who are gun nuts. And from your post, that have short comings. I assume you mean folks who have guns to look macho?
Then you say hunters are different.
When folks protest, they bring things like photos of victims of killings, ultra sounds of babies, pretty much symbols of what they are protesting for or against.
Your post pretty much pushe the view that pro gun folks should not bring their guns when protesting.
They should be limited in how they protest I guess right?
And my guess is there were some hunters at that rally also.

Veritas wrote:

06/20/2013

Get over your wild west fantasies, people. Being armed is not the best way to protect yourself. Being unafraid is. When are you going to get the fact that this phony fear of diminution of gun rights serves primarily the weapons dealers who fund the NRA, and the Republicans who drum up support among the right-wing (i.e. white folks), but surely do not want black people, minorities, or poor people armed. If gun rights are really such a national imperative, then why are the gun supporters not coming up with a way to provide guns to the homeless and the poor who are statistically, overwhelmingly, the victims of gun violence? How about some charity -- guns for the poor? Not likely. Do we really want every "law-abiding citizen" armed regardless of their intelligence, judgment, or bias? How many innocent people would have been killed in the hunt for the Boston bombers, in light of the people who were accosted, attacked, or informed upon, who "looked like" the bad guys. Gun-toting yahoos are wannabe heroes. Regulate or die.

RabbitNH wrote:

06/20/2013

Your argument is filled with holes Veritas. All you have to do is look at who is commiting the crimes. When was the last time you read about a crime where someone killed someone, and the killer was a law abiding, responsible gun owner?
In Chicago it is druggies and gangs that kill each other.
Most of the mass killings have been mental cases.
The homeless often have no guns and beat each other to death with whatever they can get their hands on.When is the last time you read a homeless guy shot another homeless guy with a gun?
The idea that a responsible gun owner would go after the Boston Bomber and seek him out is insane. That is a spin to push the left's view that gun owners are cowboy vigilantes, ready to ignore the law and get in the way of the police.
Yet, we have anti gun folks consider that Bomber a victim of gun violence. No mention about how his brother ran him over with a car right.
I just look at who is killing who. It is not law abiding, responsible gun owners.

TCB wrote:

06/22/2013

Veritas,
Yes don't let those facts get in the way of the soc/left dogma. "Best defense being unafraid" is an argument naive in the extreme. its far more about defending your family behind you than being afraid of what's in front of you. I hope you never confronted by a violent assailant, rapist or murders but should that happen- let me know how bellowing, "I'm not afraid of you" works to effectively defend your family.

RabbitNH wrote:

06/20/2013

The left believes that freedom of speech should be limited to liberals. The Wall Street Gang in their eyes were not rude, committed crimes, caused some businesses to close, and acted out against the cops.
The folks who had to be thrown out of the state house were not rude.
Tea Party had no right to protest.
Folks praying outside an abortion clinic are rude and bullies.
Conservative women in politics deserve to be abused.
They will never reply to their hypocrisy. They will just state that conservatives deserve to be treated badly because they are evil.

Tesha wrote:

06/20/2013

This isn't a left/right issue, and the rest of your comment has nothing to do with a group of armed, angry, abusive bullies interrupting a vigil held for the people who've been killed by a gun.
Looking at several videos, your brave men were shouting down litlle old white-haired ladies. They weren't rude, they were violent.

GWTW wrote:

06/20/2013

A vigil??? Are vigils usually financed by a billionaire? Vigil....lol

GWTW wrote:

06/20/2013

Apparently there is something worse than blowing up innocent people...owning a gun.

Van wrote:

06/20/2013

GWTW, did you see that these left wing wacko anti-gun nuts think the Boston Marathon Bomber is a victim. They called out the bomber's name as a victim. How crazy extreme is that allying with a radical Islamist extremist/supremacist.

DeanWeingarten wrote:

06/20/2013

So the Bloomberg statists are allowed to advocate for destruction of an effective Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, but those who support the Constitution are not supposed to use their First Amendment Right to protest it?
Most Second Amendment supporters agree with the statement: " I disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Those who disparage the Constitution's attitude seems to be: "I disargree with you, and I will use all the freedom's protected by the Constitution to destroy yours."

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

06/20/2013

the strictest gun laws in the country are in the liberal democrat enclaves.....how is that working out for ya?

GWTW wrote:

06/20/2013

"The counter-rally progressed from boorish and juvenile to ugly when a burly, 52-year-old gun rights advocate refused to stop harassing a gun violence victim"....Let me see if I understand this. Its harassment if you shout out questions to someone speaking. That would make Erica Lafferty guilty of harassment, as she shouted out questions at Ayottes town hall, then stormed out.

TCB wrote:

06/20/2013

...and how what percentage of criminals and criminally insane will abide by previous or future "gun laws". You will not disarm them so the net affect is to disarm law abiding citizens who need to defend against to same criminal elements. Recent assaults & murders w/o guns, demonstrate 1) not all violence of citizens are committed with guns (honest - look it up) and 2) citizens need protection not currently afforded by our well-intentioned police who almost by definition are an after-the-fact influence on the situation. Why would you want to do that? Who is trying to sell the message law abiding citizens, with a weapon, are more of a threat than assailants, rapists and murderers? Does that make any sense at all?

rje49 wrote:

06/20/2013

Absolutely correct. I'll also point out that "protesters" acting inconsiderately and rudely are a common annoyance at political speeches and rallys. No different here, unless you are just biased against this particular cause. We know where the Monitor stands on this issue.

GCarson wrote:

06/20/2013

Absolutely irrelevant. Here is a big problem with gun nuts comprehension of reality. No one is taking away any law abiding citizens right to own a gun. A background check only goes to insure that so what is the problem? As I see the whole argument this is not a black and white issue so don't try and make it one. One of the voices that can't be heard while all chest thumping is going on is that of the hunting community, the other is that of the group that is neither for or against guns. It is getting harder to be part of the later group when you see these people with "short" comings prancing about with their big boy toys. There is more to being an American than worshiping the holy firearm.

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

06/20/2013

Do you trust that the Obama Govt will NOT keep and track those gun records? - just saying there may be some recent revelation that would make one pause to ask that question

ItsaRepublic wrote:

06/20/2013

Fun post. I am glad that I am a "gun nut". Why is it that progressives on here can't post anything without either calling others names or attacking the character and supposed sophistication and reality of others? "Big boy toys".....another dirty dig and always allowed if from progressives. Hold on for a minute, I need to go "thump my chest" and get it out of my system. There, all set. Now I will take a short break to take my meds and play with my "big boy toys". Of course, you have to fit in "holy" (firearm); I forgot believe in anything bigger than progressive theology is truly unsophiscated.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

06/20/2013

We know where the Monitor stands on not only this issue but all issues, noticeably Left of center, somewhere between Barack Obama and Mao Tse Tung.